GANGA DIN Vs. GOKUL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the Munsif North, Faizabad, decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's suit, which was brought under Section 9, Specific Relief Act.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent alleged in the plaint that he was in possession of the plots mentioned at the foot of the plaint and had prepared them for cultivation when the defendant forcibly dispossessed him. In para. 6 of the plaint he mentioned that the land was tenancy land and that, therefore, he was paying court-fed on that basis. He did not mention that he was the tenant of the land or that he had any other title to it. The defence was that the defendant was the tenant of the plots in suit and that the civil Court bad no "jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it was cognisable by the revenue Court alone under the provisions of Section 242 read with Section 180 or Section 183, U. P. Tenancy Act. The defendant further denied that he had dispossessed the plaintiff as alleged by him. The learned Munsif held on the facts that the plaintiff bad been dispossessed by the defendant within six months of the suit and that the suit as framed was cognisable by the civil Court under Section 9, Specific Relief Act. He, therefore, decreed the Suit. The defendant has come up in revision to this Court against that order.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicant had urged that in substance the suit was a suit by a tenant for possession of agricultural land and as such was cognisable by the revenue Court and the jurisdiction of the civil Court was barred under Section 242 read with Section 180 and 183 U. P. Tenancy Act. Learned counsel has further referred to the case decided by one of us reported in Beni Madho Singh v. Prag, 1949 A. L. J. 24: (A. I. R. (36) 1949 ALL. 510), in support of his contention. He has also invited our attention to Another single Judge decision reported in Lal Bahadur Singh v. Surajpal Singh, 1946 A. L. J. 201 : (A. I. R. (33) 1948 ALL. 486) in which, according to him, a correct view of the law was not taken.